Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[ScreamingEagle]

You are going to be so bitter.

“there are some 40,000 children in California … that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” ~ Justice Kennedy

40,000 children in just California alone......?

that's the new "second class" group being created....children missing one of their real parents.....

We are their real parents. What is important is having parents that love unconditionally. Gender is immaterial. (As numerous studies show)

you are delusional...

Divorce is much worse for children than having two parents that carefully planned for and want them.

godless Seculars also pushed for easy divorce......look at the horrible results of that....

at least divorced children know who their real parents are.....and they can still have both parents in their lives to some extent....

 

[Seawytch]

40,000 children in just California alone......?

that's the new "second class" group being created....children missing one of their real parents.....

We are their real parents. What is important is having parents that love unconditionally. Gender is immaterial. (As numerous studies show)

you are delusional...

Divorce is much worse for children than having two parents that carefully planned for and want them.

godless Seculars also pushed for easy divorce......look at the horrible results of that....

at least divorced children know who their real parents are.....and they can still have both parents in their lives to some extent....

Do you have this same contempt for people who adopt? Gays adopt a lot of kids, but we can have our own too...with or without legal marriage. We've been doing it for decades. You would deny our families the legal protections of civil marriage simply because you disapprove of the way we raise our children? Awfully "small government" of you, Screamer.

Our children do know who their "real" parents are, we are. We plan and save for them (no "oopsies" here) and then we do our best to raise them to be responsible, contributing, tax paying citizens. From all accounts, we're doing a bang up job.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]

'I wanted to just show one message, choose love'- 12-year-old testifies for gay marriage

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We are their real parents. What is important is having parents that love unconditionally. Gender is immaterial. (As numerous studies show)

you are delusional...

Divorce is much worse for children than having two parents that carefully planned for and want them.

godless Seculars also pushed for easy divorce......look at the horrible results of that....

at least divorced children know who their real parents are.....and they can still have both parents in their lives to some extent....

Do you have this same contempt for people who adopt? Gays adopt a lot of kids, but we can have our own too...with or without legal marriage. We've been doing it for decades. You would deny our families the legal protections of civil marriage simply because you disapprove of the way we raise our children? Awfully "small government" of you, Screamer.

Our children do know who their "real" parents are, we are. We plan and save for them (no "oopsies" here) and then we do our best to raise them to be responsible, contributing, tax paying citizens. From all accounts, we're doing a bang up job.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]

'I wanted to just show one message, choose love'- 12-year-old testifies for gay marriage

you keep trotting out the same old tired arguments.....

adoption is not the ideal situation for children either.....but it's necessary when parents die or whatever.....just as divorce and single parenthood is not ideal.....

pointing to other negatives in society does not support your new negative.....

 

[bripat9643]

[

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

There are a lot of straight couples who can't reproduce, either. One partner is sterile or they are both too old to have children or some medical condition.

Tagg Romney and his wife had children by in-vitro fertilizaiton in a surrogate mother. (Yes, if you are a rich Mormon, you CAN buy anything... except credibility for your cult!)

Do they not count as being elibigle for marriage in your eyes?

If you want to pass a law to have people tested before they get married to determine whether they can reproduce, have at it. However, I doubt you'll find much support for such a law even from your side of the debate.

 

[bripat9643]

Tagg Romney and his wife had children by in-vitro fertilizaiton in a surrogate mother. (Yes, if you are a rich Mormon, you CAN buy anything... except credibility for your cult!)

So can rich gays. I was a surrogate twice.

that's a practice that should be outlawed, if you ask me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

one minute you guys attack us for legislating religious morality....now you say religion has nothing to do with it? .......at least make up your minds....

....but then i suppose that's asking too much from wishy-washy anything-goes Seculars.....

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

Because laws banning polygamy are Constitutional, they’re rationally based with a compelling governmental interest and aren’t predicated on animus toward a particular class of persons. Laws banning plural marriage are applied to everyone equally, including homosexuals.

And polygamy has nothing to do with same-sex couples accessing marriage law, it’s a non-issue, and bringing it up is merely an effort by the right to cloud the issue.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

[

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

There are a lot of straight couples who can't reproduce, either. One partner is sterile or they are both too old to have children or some medical condition.

Tagg Romney and his wife had children by in-vitro fertilizaiton in a surrogate mother. (Yes, if you are a rich Mormon, you CAN buy anything... except credibility for your cult!)

Do they not count as being elibigle for marriage in your eyes?

If you want to pass a law to have people tested before they get married to determine whether they can reproduce, have at it. However, I doubt you'll find much support for such a law even from your side of the debate.

besides....a straight couple has the potential to raise a family with both male and female role models.....whether the young couple adopts or the older couple raises grandchildren....

 

[JoeB131]

[

I don't care what they call it either, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. There is absolutely no reason to give gays the legal privileges of marriage. They can't reproduce, and that's the only reason those laws exist.

There are a lot of straight couples who can't reproduce, either. One partner is sterile or they are both too old to have children or some medical condition.

Tagg Romney and his wife had children by in-vitro fertilizaiton in a surrogate mother. (Yes, if you are a rich Mormon, you CAN buy anything... except credibility for your cult!)

Do they not count as being elibigle for marriage in your eyes?

If you want to pass a law to have people tested before they get married to determine whether they can reproduce, have at it. However, I doubt you'll find much support for such a law even from your side of the debate.

You are the one who wants to define marriage as a baby-making license...

Most of us just want to leave it to the two people in the relationship.. which actually makes sense to most people.

 

[JoeB131]

Tagg Romney and his wife had children by in-vitro fertilizaiton in a surrogate mother. (Yes, if you are a rich Mormon, you CAN buy anything... except credibility for your cult!)

So can rich gays. I was a surrogate twice.

that's a practice that should be outlawed, if you ask me.

Not that I need to wait for an answer, but for gays or for everyone.

Hey, here's a whacky part. H ow about you mind your own (probably largely unused) reproductive system and let everyone else mind there. What a kooky idea!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Religion does have nothing to do with civil law. Churches marry who they want to...and will continue to do so. The Catholic church still refuses to marry divorced people...no one is forcing them to change. But the government cannot discriminate like that. Equal rights and treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. (Ever heard of that?)

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

Because laws banning polygamy are Constitutional, they’re rationally based with a compelling governmental interest and aren’t predicated on animus toward a particular class of persons. Laws banning plural marriage are applied to everyone equally, including homosexuals.

And polygamy has nothing to do with same-sex couples accessing marriage law, it’s a non-issue, and bringing it up is merely an effort by the right to cloud the issue.

two women and a sperm donor.....isn't that a form of polygamy....?

there's even a case where the sperm donor (the father) was sued for child support by the state....
Kansas Wants Sperm Donor to Pay Child Support - ABC News

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

then why aren't you marching for the polygamists too......?

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

The contract isn’t being ‘changed,’ the doctrine of coverture exists in no state’s marriage law – that’s how nine states and DC are able to allow same-sex couples access to their respective marriage laws.

Polygamists’ ‘rights’ aren’t being ‘violated’ because a given state’s prohibition of plural marriage is reasonable and applied consistently.

The issue is access to the law, not how the law is composed.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The issue isn't polygamy or bigamy. The contract provided by the state remains a contract between two people of the age of majority. Not three or five or seven or animals or children. Polygamy is a strawman.

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

The contract isn’t being ‘changed,’ the doctrine of coverture exists in no state’s marriage law – that’s how nine states and DC are able to allow same-sex couples access to their respective marriage laws.

Polygamists’ ‘rights’ aren’t being ‘violated’ because a given state’s prohibition of plural marriage is reasonable and applied consistently.

The issue is access to the law, not how the law is composed.

so you're saying marriage in those states just wasn't 'defined' in state law as between one man/one woman....?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No nation that has ever existed has normalized homosexual relationships and survived. Not one.

So in order to ‘survive’ we must ignore the Constitution and violate the civil liberties of citizens.

Good plan.

We heard this gloom and doom nonsense in 1954 when schools were desegregated, not only have we ‘survived’ but we’ve flourished; more Americans enjoy greater freedom today than at any time in our Nation’s history.

Acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples will further even greater freedom and liberty for every American.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it certainly is...

if you can simply change the "contract" from male/female to male/male and female/female.....

why can't the "contract" be changed from one/one to many/many......?

what about THEIR civil rights......?

The contract isn’t being ‘changed,’ the doctrine of coverture exists in no state’s marriage law – that’s how nine states and DC are able to allow same-sex couples access to their respective marriage laws.

Polygamists’ ‘rights’ aren’t being ‘violated’ because a given state’s prohibition of plural marriage is reasonable and applied consistently.

The issue is access to the law, not how the law is composed.

so you're saying marriage in those states just wasn't 'defined' in state law as between one man/one woman....?

I’m not ‘saying’ anything, I’m merely relating the current case law on the issue:

Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain.

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The contract isn’t being ‘changed,’ the doctrine of coverture exists in no state’s marriage law – that’s how nine states and DC are able to allow same-sex couples access to their respective marriage laws.

Polygamists’ ‘rights’ aren’t being ‘violated’ because a given state’s prohibition of plural marriage is reasonable and applied consistently.

The issue is access to the law, not how the law is composed.

so you're saying marriage in those states just wasn't 'defined' in state law as between one man/one woman....?

I’m not ‘saying’ anything, I’m merely relating the current case law on the issue:

Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain.

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

so genders have no "distinct" role in society?....in marriage?.....in having children?.....in raising children.....?

this is nothing more than crazy secular progressive shit....

 

[WorldWatcher]

No nation that has ever existed has normalized homosexual relationships and survived. Not one.

Can you name a past society that has fallen (and therefore not survived) that has not allowed for different-sex marriage?

If not, then the cause of those societies falling is obviously because they allowed for different-sex marriage.



(See how stupid statements can be turned around to demonstrate their lack of logic.)

>>>>

 

[PJC]

No nation that has ever existed has normalized homosexual relationships and survived. Not one.

Clearly you are attempting to imply that normalized homosexual relationships caused those nations' downfall. You are using the fallacy of Confusing Correlation with Causation. It is an error in reasoning and is therefore worth diddly squat because it lacks logic, fact, and basic common sense.

 

[PJC]

so genders have no "distinct" role in society?....in marriage?.....in having children?.....in raising children.....? this is nothing more than crazy secular progressive shit

You're using a straw man fallacy by changing the wording of the arguments to make them weaker premises and therefore easier to attack. You did this by changing a non-absolute situation to an absolute situation.

It did not say there are “no” distinct gender roles in society, in marriage, in having children, in raising children. What was said was a movement “toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles”. That clearly does not say there are none. There was no absolute stipulated. Try rebutting what was actually said.

Furthermore, in American society the genders are not seen as having as much of a distinct role as they did in, say 1950. Many women now work outside the home, many men stay at home and are “house-husbands” and are the primary care providers for the children. Just a short 30 years ago it was seen as rare and even comedic (think of the movie Mr. Mom as an example). Now it is so commonplace that it hardly raises an eyebrow when we hear about stay at home husbands/dads.

To paraphrase you; your argument was nothing more than dishonest religious ultra-conservative shit....

 

[P@triot]

"The truth is, my generation knows better than any generation before us how broken marriages or the absence of a mother or father can devastate a generation"

Why I Marched for Marriage | TheBlaze.com

 

[Nosmo King]

Here's the logic used to justify civil unions and against granting marriage licenses: We could put up two separate drinking fountains. One for Whites and one for Coloreds because the water is the same.

Why do Conservatives consistently rationalize their love of creating second class Americans?